Friday, September 26, 2008

CNN, NPR, ABC all carried stories tonight about the congressional hearing today in Washington DC on the risks of cell phones and brain cancer.

David Carpenter, Co-Editor of the BioInitiative gave testimony. Dr. Ronald Herberman of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute also testified about the memo he issued to his 3000+ faculty and staff at UPMC.

Industry Group a No-Show at Hearing On Whether or Not There is a Link Between Cell Phones and Cancer

By EMMA SCHWARTZ

September 25, 2008

The wireless industry association refused to appear before Congress today on a hearing about whether there is a link between cell phones and cancer.

(ABC News)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of (D-Ohio), chair of the subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which held a hearing Thursday, said that CTIA (The Wireless Association), the industry major trade association in Washington DC, declined his request to testify with scientists and government officials about the status of the scientific research on the topic.

"By their refusal they deny this Congress the benefit of their testimony and the opportunity to pose questions," Kucinich said at the hearing.

But a CTIA spokesperson said the organization's lack of testimony shouldn't be seen as a dodge. "We've always maintained that this debate must be guided by science," said Joseph Farren, a spokesperson for CTIA. "We are not scientists and we just think it's best left to the scientists."

Related

Baby Acting Up: Cell Phone to Blame?

WATCH: Cell Phone Dangers: Can You Hear Me Now?

More from Brian Ross and the Investigative Team

Most studies have found no connection between cancer and cell phone use. The scientific studies pointing to an association between cell phones and brain cancer is controversial and limited. None of the major health organizations -- including the National Cancer Institute nor the American Cancer Society -- think that there is a link. In fact the chief medical director at the American Cancer Society, Otis Brawley, said as recently as this summer that some of the warnings about a link are "scaring people unnecessarily."

But during a hearing Thursday members of Congress wanted to know if they shouldn't push more people to take measures to prevent exposure.

Robert Hoover, director of epidemiology at the National Cancer Institute, did not think there was solid science."There are some isolated findings but larger studies are needed to sort out the role of chance and bias," he said. And, he noted, studies show there has been no increase in the instances of brain cancer between 1987 and 2005.

But some scientists believe there's enough of an association to be concerned, enough, at least, to take precautions in using cell phones, such as using an ear piece or limiting use.

That is what Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, did this summer, issuing a precautionary memo on cell phone use to his colleagues.

During testimony he explained his reasoning. "I cannot tell this committee that cell phones are definitely dangerous but I certainly cannot tell you that they are safe," Herberman said.

Related

French Govt. Warns of Cell Phone Dangers

Cancer Doc Dials Up Cell Phone Concerns

Can Cell Phones Cause Cancer?

Part of the problem, he said, is that many of the studies have a key limitation: that they only measure short term influence instead of looking at whether the radiation has an impact over the long haul.

He and another scientist, David Carpenter, an epidemiologist at the University of Albany, pointed to a recent study that found an association between prolonged cell phone use and two brain cancers -- one that was five time greater among those who used cell phones before the age of 20.

"I certainly find the evidence at present to be less than 100 percent," Carpenter said. But, he added "the implications are enormous."

Enormous enough that "there should be national standards of warning or precaution relating ot the use of cell phones for children?" Kucinich wanted to know.

Carpenter's response: "I think evidence is certainly strong enough for warnings that children should not use cell phones. I think failure to do that is going to lead us to an epidemic of brain cancer in the future."

Hoover's response was less sanguine. "I think it does depend on whether there is a risk or not." And that, he said, would have to wait for a major study schedule to come out sometime next year.

All Things Considered, September 25, 2008 · The suspicion that cell phones may be linked to brain cancer has percolated for years. But the vast majority of scientific studies have shown no association between the two.

The National Cancer Institute has reviewed more than a dozen studies looking for a possible link to brain cancer. Scientists there have found little or no increased risk within the first 10 years of cell phone use.

In addition, from 1987 to 2005 — a period when cell phone usage increased dramatically and phones became more powerful — there was no upturn in the incidence of brain cancers in the United States.

Dimitrios Trichopoulos, a professor of cancer prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health, says that when you combine all the information known so far, there's no cause for alarm.

"It's nothing that would make us very much worried," Trichopoulos says.

British scientists participating in the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research program also have weighed in. As part of the initiative, Lawrence Challis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Nottingham, led a panel in England that reviewed 23 studies on cell phone use and health effects.

But Challis says that among the few studies that included people who had been using cell phones for more than a decade, there is uncertainty. Some studies identified a very slight increase in the number of brain cancers among cell phone users.

"There are slight hints of something" for people who have used cell phones for more than 10 years," says Challis. "But they are not totally convincing hints. All they are, are suggestions."

It's possible the cancers were due to chance.

People concerned about long-term exposure have several options. They can text message, use headsets or earpieces, or use landlines instead of mobile phones. Some experts also recommend not keeping your cell phone attached to your body.

The British scientists have advised parents to err on the side of caution.

"Children may be more sensitive to exposures," says Challis. That's why the committee discourages the use of cell phones by children.

During a congressional hearing on cell phones and cancer, another expert issued a similar warning. Dr. Ronald Herberman, head of the University of Pittsburgh's Cancer Institute, made headlines in July when he urged his faculty and staff to limit cell phone use. In testimony before a House subcommittee, Herberman said he believes cell phones may pose a larger risk for everyone than the current science sheds light on.

Studies have indicated that long-term cell phone use may be associated with brain cancer, according to Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, and Dr. David Carpenter, director of Institute for Health and the Environment at University of Albany. They both testified in frontof the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy.

"I cannot tell this committee that cell phones are definitely dangerous. But, I certainly cannot tell you that they are safe," Herberman said.

Herberman and Carpenter cited the results from a study recently presented by Dr. Lennart Hardell of Örebro University in Sweden.

The results indicated that people who use cell phones have double the chance of developing malignant brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, which are tumors on the hearing nerve. The study also said people under age 20 were more than five times as likely to develop brain cancer.

But Dr. Robert Hoover, director or Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program at the National Cancer Institute, said the study has not yet appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, so has not come under sufficient scrutiny. The evidence for the connection between cell phones and cancer is inconclusive and more research is needed, he said.

"Larger studies are needed to sort out chance and bias," Hoover testified.

Interphone, a series of multinational studies on the risk of cancer from cell phones, has not found an increase in tumors associated with the first 10 years of mobile phone use, he said.

Some findings show an increased risk of tumors diagnosed on the side of the head that the cell phone is pressed against, but this pattern has not been seen consistently, Hoover said.

Don't Miss

* Cell phones can affect sperm quality, researcher says

* 5 tips to limit your cell phone use

CTIA, the International Association for Wireless Telecommunications, declined the invitation to testify, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential candidate from Ohio, who led the hearing, said.

Steve Largent, CEO of CTIA, issued a statement Wednesday saying the industry has supported scientific research on these issues and supports the Federal Communications Commision's safety guidelines.

"The available scientific evidence and expert reviews from leading global health organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, United States Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization reflect a consensus based on published scientific research showing that there is no reason for concern," Largent's statement said.

The overall evidence for the cancer-phone link has not been statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level, a standard in science, Carpenter said. But he also noted that U.S.-funded research is very scarce.

"Are we at the same place we were with smoking and lung cancer 30 years ago?" he asked.

Carpenter and Herberman testified that the risk of brain cancer for children is far greater than for adults. Herberman demonstrated a model showing that the radiation from cell phones would penetrate far deeper into a 5-year-old's brain than an adult's. See models from researchers at the University of Pittsburgh »

But the incidence of brain cancer in children has not increased significantly from the late 1980s to 2005, Hoover said.

The Federal Communications Commission limits cell phone radio frequency energy emissions, called the specific absorption rate (SAR), at 1.6 watts per kilogram, as measured over one gram of tissue.

The standard was developed in 1997 in consultation with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a professional association open to everyone, includingmanufacturers and health specialists.

Many experiments show that radio frequency energy does cause "biological effects" without heating tissue, although not all of those effects are harmful, Carpenter said. Hoover agreed that there could be such effects related to cancer risk, but they have not been properly vetted in a laboratory.

The FCC itself does not have the expertise to evaluate whether this standard is appropriate protection for possible heath risks, Julius Knapp, director of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, testified.

The hearing took place just a week after the Cleveland Clinic reported a study showing that keeping a cell phone on talk mode in a pocket can decrease sperm quality.

Herberman had issued a warning to physicians, scientists, and staff at the University of Pittsburgh in July advising them to limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer. The Israeli Health Ministry endorsed this recommendation within a week, he said.

Ellen Marks of Lafayette, California, whose husband found out he had a brain tumor on his right frontal lobe in May, attended the hearing.

advertisement

The tumor is on the same side of his head where he held his cell phone, which he used about 30 hours per month. She believes the tumor is the result of cell phone use.

"I often threatened to throw it in the garbage, and how I wish I had," she said. "This horror could have been avoided with a simple warning."

____________________________________________

The Radiation Research Trust conference - update

On 8th & 9th September http://www.radiationresearch.org/conference/ continues to attract an incredible amount of news around the globe. Attention has focused on Lennart Hardell, Professor of Department of Oncology, UniversityHospital, Orebro, Sweden and the Swedish team's research indicating children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones. I would like to draw your attention to direct quotes with regards to brain tumours and children taken from some of the PowerPoint presentations from Professor Hardell, Lloyd Morgan, Professor Yury Grigoriev and Dr. David Carpenter.

Professor Lennart Hardell concluded his presentation saying: "there is a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma & glioma after 10 years ipsilateral mobile phone use. Current standard for exposure to microwaves during mobile phone use is not safe for long term tumour risks and needs to be revised."

David O. Carpenter, M.D, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany & Co-Author of the Bioinititive Report has given evidence at the USA Congressional hearing. He also presented at the Radiation Research Trust Conference in London and said "Swedish studies show elevated brain cancer & acoustic neuromas in individuals using a mobile phone for 10 + years. Israeli studies show parotid gland cancers in heavy mobile phone users. There is overwhelming evidence that in general children are more vulnerable than adults to environmental exposures. Unfortunately children are major users of all phones in today's culture."

Professor Yury GRIGORIEV, Chairman of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russia. Professor Grigoriev gave a powerful presentation with regards to children. He said: "The potential risk to children's health is very high and a completely new problem. Use of mobile phones for those under 18 or pregnant should be restricted. Children have a unique vulnerability as they grow and develop; there are "windows of susceptibility" periods when their organs and systems may be particularly sensitive to the effect of certain environmental threats. The existing standards cannot guarantee the safe, healthy development of the next generation."

Lloyd Morgan, Director of the Central Brain Tumour Registry of the United States (USA) also gave a presentation at the Radiation Research Trust conference.Based on a 30 year latency time for brain tumours, he projects there could be up to 1.6 million mobile phone brain tumours in the USA by 2019. At a treatment cost of $250K per patient, this would cost $400 Billion. It would also require 32-fold more neurosurgeons eleven years from now.

Dear MEPFood supplements and mobile phones: are their respective risks to public health being managed proportionately?Most technologies with which humans interact are now heavily influenced by risk assessment. Following the assessment, risks are generally managed via regulation and communication strategies. The alleged justification of all of this is to achieve a high level of consumer protection. The recent changes in health and safety requirements in many people's working environment and the ever-growing attention to safety measures in motor vehicle design are just two areas that readily spring to mind.

In some areas, the amount of regulation appears to be disproportionate to the known risk, while in others, the lack of concern for risk or the tolerance of risk because of an assumed benefit derived from exposure to the source of risk, appears to expose the public to substantial risk.

The raft of regulation emanating from Brussels and targeting natural health products is an example of the former, while the reliance by the orthodox medical profession on pharmaceuticals is an example of the latter. Pharmaceutical-based healthcare continues despite evidence that mortality associated with the use of "properly prescribed" medicines is the fourth biggest killer after heart disease, stroke and cancer (JAMA. 1998; 279(15): 1200-5). The situation is comparable elsewhere, especially in the industrialised world. Another less well know example relates to the public health risks of low intensity electromagnetic fields (EMF) from cellular (mobile) phones and wireless devices.

This begs the question: is this tolerance or intolerance of risk really the result of a careful weighing up of risks and benefits to public health? Or has it perhaps got more to do with the sheer gravity of corporate influence on policy makers and regulators?

We urge you, as a Member of the European Parliament, to consider carefully two issues about which we have just submitted petitions to the European Parliament Petitions Committee. These affect risk assessment and management methodologies for vitamin and mineral food supplements and sources of EMF respectively.

The first of these sectors is being pressurised to such an extent, that if regulatory initiatives, particularly in Europe, are not altered, the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals allowed in food supplements will be lower than those found in a single junk food meal. To give you just one example, European citizens are critically short of selenium since we stopped importing North American wheat grown in selenium-rich soils. This essential mineral supports numerous vital enzyme functions in the body and helps reduce cancer risk, yet the most influential risk assessment body in Germany wants consumers to be limited on a daily basis to the amount of selenium found in just one-third of a brazil nut!

Food supplements are taken by around half the population of most western countries, and increasing amounts of research—as well as experience from the practice of clinical nutrition—shows that increased vitamin and mineral intakes can substantially improve wellbeing, at very little cost to government.

On the other hand, the radiation emitted by cellular phones, cordless DECT phones and WIFI systems far exceeds those levels considered safe by the majority of scientists researching the risks of very low intensity electromagnetic radiation from such devices. Children and foetuses are most susceptible, yet the public are told nothing about these risks. Just how well are these risks being managed or communicated?

Most people are exposed to multiple sources of radiation from these devices on a daily basis and their overall exposure has increased dramatically over just the last five years as more and more wireless technologies are rolled out.

We, at the ANH, argue that regulators or standard setting bodies have seriously misappropriated the risks—especially the relative risks—of these contrasting technologies. The risks of food supplements appear to have been dramatically overstated. Any analysis of food safety data indicates that risks associated with vitamin and mineral supplements are the lowest of any product consumed orally, being substantially less than that of conventional foods. Yet, food supplements, especially within the European Union, are facing regulatory pressure that could see the vast majority of beneficial dosages of nutrients banned.

Poly-herbal products originating from non-European traditional medicinal cultures, such as Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine, are also set to have a particularly rough ride in the years ahead, many potentially falling between the two stools of European law designed for traditional herbal medicines and food supplements respectively.

We also argue, and are supported in this by a group of leading researchers in the field, that the risks from very low intensity electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by a wide range of wireless telecommunications technologies have been dramatically understated by regulatory and standard setting bodies.

Alive to our concerns, Irish MEP Kathy Sinnott, has agreed to host two petitions by the ANH which focus on each of these issues.

The European Parliament, the only vestige of a democratic system within the law-making environment of the European Union, has a significant responsibility to its electorate to ensure that risks are assessed objectively and accurately, while being managed proportionately.

The ANH petitions, submitted yesterday to the European Parliament Petitions Committee, are calling for urgent and independent re-evaluation of risk assessment and management approaches affecting both the food supplement and telecommunications sectors, given recent evidence and published science that suggests the models used in both sectors are seriously flawed and not fit for purpose.

Please forward these petitions to those you know who may be concerned. We would also very much like to hear from organisations wishing to lend their support to either or both of our petitions. Please email us at info@anhcampaign.org<mailto:info@anhcampaign.org>.

Thank you for your consideration of these important public health issues.

Yours, in health, naturally

Robert Verkerk BSc MSc DIC PhDExecutive and Scientific DirectorAlliance for Natural Healthwww.anhcampaign.org <http://www.anhcampaign.org>Supporting the sustainability of natural health in Europe and beyond

WEEP News

by: Martin Weatherall

As a Canadian independent foundation, WEEP acts as an umbrella organization and focuses on progressive initiatives that bring increased awareness, policy change, and entrepreneurial activity around the issues of safe Electro Magnetic emissions.

WEEP News is a service provided by WEEP to keep those interested in and affected by Wireless, Electric, & Electromagnetic Pollution, informed on a daily basis, of all the current issues and initiatives in the world today.